Not sure what topic, I have an insurance question. -first speed ticket in 12yrs period... on mbike 168kmh alleged east of London 401, May 2015 -did you go to trial? no bargained for straight "speed fine=$782", NO stunt driving because 1/6 judges will give you "jail time" in this area, ... so I was told by legal council -did you hire a paralegal, yes for $2,200 tax incl. -TD Meloche Monnex Insurance customer of 25 yrs, never at fault, 7* rated driver Today I get a call from a nice TD rep. saying "your insurance will be cancelled in 1 mth for you/wife/kids" - have a nice day, no alternatives, good luck with your search. "We won't insure 'major convictions' end of story" -TD So any suggestions on where to go, what to say?
Not sure what topic, I have an insurance question.
-first speed ticket in 12yrs period... on mbike 168kmh alleged east of London 401, May 2015
-did you go to trial? no bargained for straight "speed fine=$782", NO stunt driving because 1/6 judges will give you "jail time" in this area, ... so I was told by legal council
-did you hire a paralegal, yes for $2,200 tax incl.
-TD Meloche Monnex Insurance customer of 25 yrs, never at fault, 7* rated driver
Today I get a call from a nice TD rep. saying "your insurance will be cancelled in 1 mth for you/wife/kids" - have a nice day, no alternatives, good luck with your search.
"We won't insure 'major convictions' end of story" -TD
my insurance was renewed without incident early Nov 2015, but now that it expires Nov 2016, NOW the red flag came up, recall MY CONVICTION date was end of Nov 2015, so that spared me ONE YEAR of good timing. Insurance companies go by CONVICTION DATE 3yrs and not offense date May 2015. Demerits disappear in 2yrs Insurance in 3yrs :)
my insurance was renewed without incident early Nov 2015, but now that it expires Nov 2016, NOW the red flag came up, recall MY CONVICTION date was end of Nov 2015, so that spared me ONE YEAR of good timing.
Insurance companies go by CONVICTION DATE 3yrs and not offense date May 2015.
If you can't get coverage through a regular provider, you'll need to go through facility insurance. They provide insurance for everyone, but the rates are astronomical since they only insure those deemed "high risk". Probably also want to look at seeing if your wife and children can get regular coverage without you on their plan. Probably be required to sign a waiver stating you can never operate vehicles they've insured or the coverage would be void.
If you can't get coverage through a regular provider, you'll need to go through facility insurance. They provide insurance for everyone, but the rates are astronomical since they only insure those deemed "high risk". Probably also want to look at seeing if your wife and children can get regular coverage without you on their plan. Probably be required to sign a waiver stating you can never operate vehicles they've insured or the coverage would be void.
Nice registered letter came in the mail 5 days after initial TD phone call making the cancellation official. "1 or more major conviction within the last 3 years". Got my first ins. quote back from a BROKER was $900/yr, now will be $2,400/yr for next 2 yrs. So $3,000 insurance total penalty over 2yrs on top of $800 towing/7days storage during initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law. Never an at fault accident in 38 yrs of driving. No speed ticket or any ticket for 12 yrs. If you do the math on this thread and add 200 for travel to/from impound lot... $7,000 total. And you wonder why people won't stop for cops anymore.
Nice registered letter came in the mail 5 days after initial TD phone call making the cancellation official. "1 or more major conviction within the last 3 years".
Got my first ins. quote back from a BROKER was $900/yr, now will be $2,400/yr for next 2 yrs. So $3,000 insurance total penalty over 2yrs on top of $800 towing/7days storage during initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law.
Never an at fault accident in 38 yrs of driving.
No speed ticket or any ticket for 12 yrs.
If you do the math on this thread and add 200 for travel to/from impound lot...
$7,000 total.
And you wonder why people won't stop for cops anymore.
Yep, it is "legal" robbery... they have the guns and jails so they can legally rob you! Now more on this... So I am confused by this... you were never convicted of the speeding charge? I am pretty sure that insurance can not use a roadside suspension against you. You have to have been actually convicted.
Yep, it is "legal" robbery... they have the guns and jails so they can legally rob you!
Now more on this...
250alp wrote:
...initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law...
So I am confused by this... you were never convicted of the speeding charge?
I am pretty sure that insurance can not use a roadside suspension against you. You have to have been actually convicted.
All of which could be avoided by you driving sensibly and not going 68 over the limit. The severe penalties for doing what you did have been in place for several years now. Don't blame the police, don't blame the insurance companies, and don't blame the government. Blame yourself and consider this saga a lesson learned.
250alp wrote:
Nice registered letter came in the mail 5 days after initial TD phone call making the cancellation official. "1 or more major conviction within the last 3 years".
Got my first ins. quote back from a BROKER was $900/yr, now will be $2,400/yr for next 2 yrs. So $3,000 insurance total penalty over 2yrs on top of $800 towing/7days storage during initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law.
Never an at fault accident in 38 yrs of driving.
No speed ticket or any ticket for 12 yrs.
If you do the math on this thread and add 200 for travel to/from impound lot...
$7,000 total.
And you wonder why people won't stop for cops anymore.
All of which could be avoided by you driving sensibly and not going 68 over the limit. The severe penalties for doing what you did have been in place for several years now. Don't blame the police, don't blame the insurance companies, and don't blame the government. Blame yourself and consider this saga a lesson learned.
So I am confused by this... you were never convicted of the speeding charge? I am pretty sure that insurance can not use a roadside suspension against you. You have to have been actually convicted. Convicted in absentia??
jsherk wrote:
Yep, it is "legal" robbery... they have the guns and jails so they can legally rob you!
Now more on this...
250alp wrote:
...initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law...
So I am confused by this... you were never convicted of the speeding charge?
I am pretty sure that insurance can not use a roadside suspension against you. You have to have been actually convicted.
I didn't know that insurance agents have guns and jails. The excessive penalties described here are insurance costs, nothing to do with the police nor even the government. The insurance companies see a correlation between excessive speed and excessive claims so they don't want to insure drivers like that. But sure, it's just easier to blame the police for everything.
jsherk wrote:
Yep, it is "legal" robbery... they have the guns and jails so they can legally rob you!.
I didn't know that insurance agents have guns and jails. The excessive penalties described here are insurance costs, nothing to do with the police nor even the government.
The insurance companies see a correlation between excessive speed and excessive claims so they don't want to insure drivers like that.
But sure, it's just easier to blame the police for everything.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
The government makes insurance mandatory and therefore we have to pay for it or else they send their guys with guns to enforce it. The government is the one sending the police to charge for pre-crime speeding when there is no proof that it was unsafe. So the execessive insurance costs are directly related to government intervention. I agree that the police are just doing their job... the job the government tells them to do. The problem though with both government and police is that they have taken an oath to the Queen, not to the people, so they have no requirement to serve us or do what is right for us.
argyll wrote:
The excessive penalties described here are insurance costs, nothing to do with the police nor even the government.
The government makes insurance mandatory and therefore we have to pay for it or else they send their guys with guns to enforce it. The government is the one sending the police to charge for pre-crime speeding when there is no proof that it was unsafe. So the execessive insurance costs are directly related to government intervention.
I agree that the police are just doing their job... the job the government tells them to do. The problem though with both government and police is that they have taken an oath to the Queen, not to the people, so they have no requirement to serve us or do what is right for us.
I'd love for you to go and tell the family of someone killed by a speeder that you think speed enforcement is not doing what's right. You have consistently failed to reply when asked to comment on whether all speeds that don't result in injury are safe. Can I do 100 in a school zone if I don't hit any one ? What about 150 ? You repeat your mantra that if no-one is hurt then there should be no enforcement but enforcement stops people doing the things that can cause catastrophies. Darwinism is fine if it the driver getting killed but sadly it is often the people not encased in steel who are the victims.
I'd love for you to go and tell the family of someone killed by a speeder that you think speed enforcement is not doing what's right. You have consistently failed to reply when asked to comment on whether all speeds that don't result in injury are safe. Can I do 100 in a school zone if I don't hit any one ? What about 150 ? You repeat your mantra that if no-one is hurt then there should be no enforcement but enforcement stops people doing the things that can cause catastrophies. Darwinism is fine if it the driver getting killed but sadly it is often the people not encased in steel who are the victims.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
If enforcement was so effective then nobody would get killed by speeders! Some speeds are not safe. But speed limits are not about safe speeds. They are just a random numbers on a sign. I have seen 50 zones where you could easily do 100 safely. There are times on the 400 where it is completely safe to be doing 140 easy. Is it a school zone with kids and cars all over the street? Well then if you are doing 100 then you are probably scaring people and swerving in and out of traffice and that is what makes it unsafe. Is it 2am and the street is completely empty? Well then if there is nobody around and no vehicles then maybe it is no unsafe. If enforcement was about proving the speed to be unsafe then I would certainly have a lot less to complain about. Prove to me that the op doing 168 on the 401 was unsafe. Traffic, weather, road conditions, etc all play a part in this. It might have been unsafe, but it also might have been perfectly safe! They want to call it stunt driving, but the average person knows that just driving fast is not the same thing as doing stunts. Simply driving fast is not necessarily unsafe. Simply driving faster than a speed limit is not necessarily unsafe. Speed enforcement is promoted as keeping us safe, so then why not have to prove that it was unsafe? Insurance goes up because you supposedly did something that was unsafe, so why not have to prove that it was unsafe?
argyll wrote:
I'd love for you to go and tell the family of someone killed by a speeder that you think speed enforcement is not doing what's right.
If enforcement was so effective then nobody would get killed by speeders!
Some speeds are not safe. But speed limits are not about safe speeds. They are just a random numbers on a sign.
I have seen 50 zones where you could easily do 100 safely. There are times on the 400 where it is completely safe to be doing 140 easy.
Is it a school zone with kids and cars all over the street? Well then if you are doing 100 then you are probably scaring people and swerving in and out of traffice and that is what makes it unsafe. Is it 2am and the street is completely empty? Well then if there is nobody around and no vehicles then maybe it is no unsafe.
If enforcement was about proving the speed to be unsafe then I would certainly have a lot less to complain about.
Prove to me that the op doing 168 on the 401 was unsafe. Traffic, weather, road conditions, etc all play a part in this. It might have been unsafe, but it also might have been perfectly safe! They want to call it stunt driving, but the average person knows that just driving fast is not the same thing as doing stunts.
Simply driving fast is not necessarily unsafe. Simply driving faster than a speed limit is not necessarily unsafe. Speed enforcement is promoted as keeping us safe, so then why not have to prove that it was unsafe? Insurance goes up because you supposedly did something that was unsafe, so why not have to prove that it was unsafe?
How do you know the road is empty. People say, "the road was empty" but then get pulled over so clearly they couldn't see the road was empty. A road at 2 am is often empty but the one time it isn't with a pedestrian maybe the vehicle should be travelling at a slower speed. I don't disagree that some speed limits should be raised but your concept of no speed limits and prosecute those that hit someone is just insanity.
jsherk wrote:
Is it a school zone with kids and cars all over the street? Well then if you are doing 100 then you are probably scaring people and swerving in and out of traffice and that is what makes it unsafe. Is it 2am and the street is completely empty? Well then if there is nobody around and no vehicles then maybe it is no unsafe.
How do you know the road is empty. People say, "the road was empty" but then get pulled over so clearly they couldn't see the road was empty. A road at 2 am is often empty but the one time it isn't with a pedestrian maybe the vehicle should be travelling at a slower speed.
I don't disagree that some speed limits should be raised but your concept of no speed limits and prosecute those that hit someone is just insanity.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
My concept is that there needs to be harm, injury or damage. Harm can be defined as simply as "being scared", so nobody has to be hit or injured and nothing has be damaged for this to apply. An example would be erratic driving like weaving in and out of traffic on the 401. I guess if I ever run for Premier's office, I won't get your vote!
My concept is that there needs to be harm, injury or damage. Harm can be defined as simply as "being scared", so nobody has to be hit or injured and nothing has be damaged for this to apply. An example would be erratic driving like weaving in and out of traffic on the 401.
I guess if I ever run for Premier's office, I won't get your vote!
Again, so it's OK to drive like a bat out of hell along a road and the only problem comes when you pass the person who you didn't see because you were going too fast for that class of road ? Do you wear a seatbelt ? Why bother - you only need it when you crash ? If you aren't crashing then what's the point ? Aaaaah, because you MIGHT crash and you can't predict when that would be.........
Again, so it's OK to drive like a bat out of hell along a road and the only problem comes when you pass the person who you didn't see because you were going too fast for that class of road ?
Do you wear a seatbelt ? Why bother - you only need it when you crash ? If you aren't crashing then what's the point ? Aaaaah, because you MIGHT crash and you can't predict when that would be.........
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
"I agree that the police are just doing their job... the job the government tells them to do. The problem though with both government and police is that they have taken an oath to the Queen, not to the people, so they have no requirement to serve us or do what is right for us." Last I checked you don't have the swear and oath to the Queen "I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge my duties as a member of the (insert name of municipality) Police Services Board faithfully, impartially and according to the Police Services Act, any other Act, and any regulation, rule or by-law. So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.)" Check your facts
"I agree that the police are just doing their job... the job the government tells them to do. The problem though with both government and police is that they have taken an oath to the Queen, not to the people, so they have no requirement to serve us or do what is right for us."
Last I checked you don't have the swear and oath to the Queen
"I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge my duties as a member of the (insert name of municipality) Police Services Board faithfully, impartially and according to the Police Services Act, any other Act, and any regulation, rule or by-law.
So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.)"
You also quoted incorrectly... Reg. 144/91: OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS (and seems duplicated in Reg. 268/10: GENERAL) 2. The oath or affirmation of office to be taken by a police officer, special constable or First Nations Constable shall be in one of the following forms: I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Her Majesty the Queen and to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve the peace, prevent offences and discharge my other duties as (insert name of office) faithfully, impartially and according to law. So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.) or I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve the peace, prevent offences and discharge my other duties as (insert name of office) faithfully, impartially and according to law. So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.) But yes I see there is an option to either take an oath to the queen or not. However both oaths are to CANADA which is a crown corporation owned/run/governed ultimately by the Queen and both are still NOT to the people.
You also quoted incorrectly...
Reg. 144/91: OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS (and seems duplicated in Reg. 268/10: GENERAL)
2. The oath or affirmation of office to be taken by a police officer, special constable or First Nations Constable shall be in one of the following forms:
I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Her Majesty the Queen and to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve the peace, prevent offences and discharge my other duties as (insert name of office) faithfully, impartially and according to law.
So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.)
or
I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve the peace, prevent offences and discharge my other duties as (insert name of office) faithfully, impartially and according to law.
So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.)
But yes I see there is an option to either take an oath to the queen or not. However both oaths are to CANADA which is a crown corporation owned/run/governed ultimately by the Queen and both are still NOT to the people.
Guys please brush up on your traffic engineering. Speed limits are set two ways; 1) Dictatorship or 2) Scientific/Engineering method via traffic survey. The safest speed of traffic is the speed that 85% of the traffic is going at or below, that is called the 85th percentile speed and it is shaped like a bell curve. It is not debateable unless you want to talk about "school zones" or "construction zones". Go to stop100.ca and you will see MTO traffic studies from 1993 or 23 years ago that will clearly show traffic speeds have not changed in 23 yrs. Long story long, I prefer to say I was going 38km/hr over the speed of traffic on a long straight section on a clear dry day for a very short period. Perhaps you are familiar with Stuart Highway in Australia. A recent 4 yr experiment of "no speed limit" looks like coming to an end with a change in government, ZERO speed fatalities. So clearly there is more to safe driving than posting pretty signs that are not based on science.
Guys please brush up on your traffic engineering. Speed limits are set two ways; 1) Dictatorship or 2) Scientific/Engineering method via traffic survey. The safest speed of traffic is the speed that 85% of the traffic is going at or below, that is called the 85th percentile speed and it is shaped like a bell curve. It is not debateable unless you want to talk about "school zones" or "construction zones". Go to stop100.ca and you will see MTO traffic studies from 1993 or 23 years ago that will clearly show traffic speeds have not changed in 23 yrs. Long story long, I prefer to say I was going 38km/hr over the speed of traffic on a long straight section on a clear dry day for a very short period. Perhaps you are familiar with Stuart Highway in Australia. A recent 4 yr experiment of "no speed limit" looks like coming to an end with a change in government, ZERO speed fatalities. So clearly there is more to safe driving than posting pretty signs that are not based on science.
We all know that numerous police agencies around Ontario (and world for that matter) set up speed traps in inconspicuous locations to catch motorists who are speeding.
If you know of any speed traps that are in regular use please post them here for all to know and avoid speeding fines.
Format: Town, Location, Direction, known days of operation (if known).
I received a speeding ticket this past weekend, and although the officer was nice and gave my 6yo a coupon for a free slushy, I want to fight the ticket.
The officer wrote the offence as "95km/h in a posted E0 km/h zone" the "E" being what looks like a written backwards 3. Now I know and you can probably guess he intended to write an 8 but that is not what is there it is an incomplete 8 and…
Need some help as i was given a old version yellow ticket(Form4) with improper left turn by an officer last week, which is old version printed by 2009. Then two days later, the officer found me giving a new version ticket with color green(Form4), printed by 2012. The details on face pages for two tickets are similar, but back sides are different. My question is first yellow ticket is effective or…
I was charged of speeding, but I don't know what the radar Decatur Genesis II Select Directional VIP is? please let me know what kind device is this and if any one have the manual can you give it to please pleaseeeee.
Recently I got a ticket for disobey sign under the HTA. From where I turned on to the street, the sign was visible for less than 10 metres, during which time I was performing safety checks for upcoming turn. ( I'll post full details after I first get some advise. )
What is the best defense for this? I took some digital pictures but my camera does not do .raw photos and at that time I had not…
I was turning left from Creditview into the left lane of Argentia Road (in Missisauga), while a police cruiser driving the opposite direction turning right into the right lane of Argentia Road. As I saw the cruiser turning right into the right lane of Argentia Road, I also turned left into the left lane of Argentia Road. The officer stopped me and told me that I was wrong, I had to wait until…
So I was on my way home, going a solid 120 as usual in the fast lane. Someone decides to cut me off going less than 100. I do a quick double lane change and speed up unknowingly hitting apparently 150. After speeding for a mere 20 seconds, I am pulled over. Cop says he reduced the ticket to 49 over, I was charged $359 for that. Of course, my insurance isn't in my car... I had to take it out…
After doing quite a bit of research, I stumbled across this forum and thought it would be a good idea to get some opinions about the situation that I currently find myself in. Hopefully some of you may have experienced this in the past and can provide me with some guidance for the best course of action. Thank you in advance for all your help. I greatly appreciate it.
I was driving on a two-lane Trans-Canada route where the indicated speed limit was 90 km/h and following a car for about 15 minutes. That car was going between 70 to 80 whenever there was a curve or a hill going up ahead. Passing was either not permitted or not safe in those sections. However, whenever there was an opportunity to pass that car, the driver would increase its speed to about 115…
My elderly mother received a city bylaw ticket (Ottawa) for parking on private property. A tow trunk was at the scene to tow the vehicle, and they charged a "drop fee" to unhook the vehicle right away. The bylaw officer who issued the ticket was present and said that the ticket would get dismissed in court (as it was issued in error), and that there should be a way to apply to get the tow…
I went to Huntsville for buying a horse trailer in Thursday.
Got 1 ticket of careless driving nearby east gate of Algonquin Park. They police said he received a complaint that my pickup truck hit the road shoulder and disturbed some gravel dust.
I found a police car traced me, so I turn to a roadside motel. After I parked my vehicle, and heading to motel office, the police car arrived gently…
My trial for a speeding ticket is coming up. I have followed recommendations off ticketcombat website and have sent 3 disclosure requests (without phone number) and have received nothing. At the day of trial it will be about 10 months since the ticket was issued.
I guess the first step will be to ask the court for an adjournment during the Motions, "Your Worship, I would like to ask for an…
Last week I was driving though downtown and because of the slippery / wet conditions could not stop when the light was turning yellow to red and slid in to the intersection. I was hit by another car (near the headlamp). None of us were injured, there was significat damge to the cars. The air bags did not deploy.
I was given a ticket that reads : Red Light - fail to stop - H.T.A sect 144 (18) Fine…
a few years ago, I posted about getting a 19+over ticket and said it was a ridiculous ticket since it was down a hill and everyone drives that 10-20 over.
Everyone here claimed I was outrageous to be driving over the limit by ANY amount and I was driving wildly for doing so. Since those two years have passed, I've stuck to the speed limit...guess what happens?
About a month ago, I got a funny situation where a cop made a u-turn to stop in a very showy fashion (that scared and surprised me) because he almost hit me while doing that.
Anyhow, he claimed that he metered me while he was driving towards me so he said his car is equipped to meter opposite coming cars as he drives. I filed the ticket and I was convicted within few days - an…
My wife got a speeding ticket on a construction zone on Hwy 400 and I went to court to try to defend her.
I ordered the disclosure request and got it on the first trial.
The first trial my strategy was to say there was conflict and misunderstanding of road signs. The prosecutor told me I could not confirm that since I personally wasnt there the day of the offence, and my wife has to…
So I had a guy turn across my lane into his driveway and I hit him. I'm going to court solo so I need any information at all regarding proceedings.
I clearly saw two police officers on scene and got disclosure from only one of their black-books even though they both took notes, one from me and one from him. He got a ticket which I will explain in the next paragraph. I don't see any driving history…
So Again, I really don't know how I'm attracting attention to myself, but I am.
Saturday at 1:30 in the morning I was pulled over on the 400 for 142 in a posted 100 Zone. Honestly, I know I was speeding, but I thought maybe 110-120 (I'm trying to clean up my act.) Anyways, Pulled over, Ticketed, Explained 3 options on the back, and we departed on our way.
Hey everyone. Back last summer I got a parking ticket for being within 3m of a fire hydrant. Funny thing is, I parked (in my estimation) at least far enough away from it, deliberately. There were no markings on the pavement but I can't believe I was within 10 feet of that thing (sorry I suck at metric.)
It's only $20 but I was ticked off 'cause I don't park in front of fire hydrants and don't…
I have been charged with driving under suspension due to medical reasons, It was suspended in Mar and In apr I got a new car put it on the road and the License Breau said nothing to me to let me know it was still suspended. I have been to court 2x for this matter first time I asked for adjurnment to seek a resoultion, 2x I went I ask for another adjurnment to seek a resolution because the CA had…
